Oldal 109 [109]
ENDRE MARTON: THE DEATH OF MARAT, 1966
the main cause of the production’s supposed “epochal importance”,*** which
made quite a few critics write about “the rebirth of the National Theatre and,
perhaps more broadly, our ‘national theatre”.*® Cultural journalism called
Marton’s mise-en-scéne one of the greatest artistic achievements of 1966,‘
and critics described how we were able to “have a contribution to the history
of theatre again” with the interpretation of the play and with the director’s
and actors" work."
However, this was only possible with the critics" keeping the range of
interpretations under complete control. Even the National Iheatre sought
to help and govern reception by relying on only historical facts in its
publications and focusing on the three protagonists by means of 18'* century
documents and cleverly selected images.*** (Not to mention the fact that only
adults were allowed to see the show, which was “not for youth”.“”’) Without
“doublespeak”,® the revolution had to be understood as the one that started in
1789, and in no way could be associated with 1956, which was called a counter¬
revolution then, anyway. At most it could also be associated with 1917, but
only as an uprising whose historical consequences all mankind must face, not
as an event the ideals of which were gradually desecrated in the decades that
ensued. It was only Judit Szant6 referring to a statement by Weiss, who said
that the figure of Napoleon “represents Stalinism, lying in the background
of Marat’s aspirations, and recognized by de Sade”.*°! But she also avoided
expanding this interpretation, i.e. de Sade’s charge of a perverted revolution
194 István Zsugán: Az egyetlen választás. A Marat halála a Nemzeti Színházban, Esti Hírlap,
Vol. 11, No. 30, 54 February, 1966, 2.
Judit Sz. Szántó: Marat és De Sade, in Zsuzsa Gál M. (ed.): Színházművészeti Almanach,
Budapest, Színháztudományi Intézet, 1966, 5. — Cf. also "one of the most exciting dramas
and the most memorable show of the decade" (Anna Földes: Nagy mű, nagy előadás, Nők
Lapja, Vol. 18, No. 8, 194 February, 1966, 25.); “the most valuable production of the National
Theatre in this decade" (Pál Geszti: Charentoni színjáték, Képes Újság, Vol. 7, No. 21, 21"
May, 1966, 8.); "an outstanding event in our theatrical life" (Ervin Szombathelyi: Marat
halála. Peter Weiss drámája a Nemzeti Színházban, Népszava, Vol. 94, No. 35, 119 February,
1966, 2.); “a serious and cathartic experience you will hardly forget. It’s real THEATRE ¬
all in upper case.” (Zsugän: Az egyetlen välasztäs, 2.); “concerning its interest, novelty and
importance, we have not seen a similar production on Hungarian stages for a long time”
Kéry: , Tanuljatok látni", 8.).
Together with Maria Sulyok’s “whole series of roles played by means of the widest range
of skills”, Janos Ferencsik’s “conducting praised with rapture at home and abroad”, and
also Andras Kovacs’s film “Cold Days, attracting worldwide attention”. G.P.: Szamvetés és
előretekintés, 9.
Sz. Szántó: Marat és De Sade, 8.
Cf. "The theatre has published a small booklet and we must be very grateful for the diverse
information we learn from it." László Bernáth: Nézőtéri jegyzetek, Munka 16:3 (1966), 28.
István Gábor: Színházi figyelő, Köznevelés 22:6 (1966), 236.
Magdolna Jákfalvi: Kettős beszéd — egyenes értés, in Tamás Kisantal — Anna Menyhért (eds.):
Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete, Budapest, LHarmattan — József Attila
Kör, 2005, 94—108.
501 Sz. Szántó: Marat és De Sade, 6.
49
a
496
49
S
49
£3
49
©
50
Ss
+ 107 +